About your Search

20110301
20110331
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
into a supposed u.s. ally by the george w. bush administration when they were searching for something to call a diplomat i can victory after the fiasco that was the fake weapons of mass destruction in iraq. it is hard enough to figure out how americans can best help out popular uprisings of people that want to determine their own future instead of living under a despot. that is hard enough. how do you figure it out when the despot in question is our despot. when he has enjoyed american support, american seal of approval? that's why there was this collective national stomach turning when we saw images of iuste g cannisters thrown at the people in egypt. the u.s. was neutral, then moved against mubarak. but had mubarak kept control of the military, ultimately it wouldn't have been tear gas, it would have been american tanks and f-16 fighter jets squaring off against the peaceful protest movement america was supporting. in libya now, there's some of that same awkwardness. justin elliott had a piece at salon.com that was helpful and interesting, noting that the george w. bush administration's emb
announcements about u.s. wars, about u.s. military interventions. some of them amounting to small wars, some amounting to very large wars. now that the united states has embarked on its latest new military intervention in libya, i would love to be able to show you the current president's oval office address on the subject, but there isn't one. president obama did make a public statement saturday afternoon that we had started that military intervention in libya, but did so from the confines of a convention center in brazil. eight years to the day that george w. bush stared unsteadily into the camera and announced the iraq invasion, president obama announced his own military intervention, but pointedly declined the opportunity to do it in a way that u.s. presidents usually do. president obama taking all sorts of criticism from the right over the past few days for not cancelling his trade visit to latin america as a result of this military action in libya. and the white house knew that criticism would come. their decision to go ahead with the trip anyway, to forego the chest thumping commander
there are people trying it. from tunisia to hosni mubarak, the great u.s. ally of three decades. to yemen, to worries about al qaeda and extremism in that area of the world. he is supposedly our ally against terrorism. even moammar gadhafi, most americans if they think of him at all think of him as a ridiculous cartoon villain. even he has recently been considered an ostensible american ally. whose planes the american military shot down in 1986. a man whose house ronald reagan shot a missile. even gadhafi was made into a supposed u.s. ally by the george call a diplomatic victory after the fiasco that was the fake weapons of mass destruction in iraq. it is hard enough to figure out how americans can best help out popular uprisings of people that want to determine their own future instead of living under a despot. that is hard enough. how do you figure it out when the despot in question is our despot. when he has enjoyed american support, american seal of approval? that's why there was this collective national stomach turning when we saw images of made in the usa tear gas cannisters thrown
, again replacing the u.s. a senior u.s. official telling reporters that more{ arab nations are expected to contribute to the no-fly zone in the next several days. the obama administration is doing everything it can to keep the american role here as low profile as possible. the consequences of that strategy at home look like this. at politico.com, sarkozy's war. sarkozy, he's french. everybody freak out. and a part of the american right that never met a military intervention they did not like is loudly upset at the lack of presidential chest thumping. they want him in a flight suit, fake landing a fighter jet, preferably with cinched up straps around the crotch. the weekly standard ran an รง editorial today which i do not think was sarcastic. they wrote president obama is taking us to war in another muslim country. good for him. not sarcastic, at least i don't think so. after noting concerns about perceptions the u.s. was in vading another muslim country, bill kristol at the weekly standard wrote rubbish. that's how they talk at the weekly standard. our invasions, he wrote, have been li
the opportunity to do that in a way that u.s. presidents usually do. president obama taking all sorts of criticism from the right for not cancelling his trade visit to latin america as a result of this military action in libya. the white house knew that criticism would come. their decision to go ahead with the trip and forego the chest-thumping commander in chief theater at the start of a military convention, that is a fascinating and blunt demonstration of how much this presidency is not like that of george w. bush. do you remember when george w. bush campaigned for president by saying he wanted america to have a humble foreign policy? candidates for president love to say stuff like that. >> i don't think it's a role of the united states to walk into a country and say we do it this way, so should you. >> the united states must be humble and proud of our values, but humble in figure out how to chart their course. >> candidates say stuff like that when they are running because americans like that idea. americans like to vote for the idea. we like that kind of talk and we expect it from candidates.
or airplanes. he stressed the u.s. is diplomatically supporting the no-fly zone, not the enforcement itself. no american troops on the ground, no american planes, no enforcement itself, that's what we know. what we don't know is a lot bigger. joining us now, eugene robinson, pulitzer prize winning columnist for "the washington post." thanks for being here. >> good evening, chris. >> what do you make of president obama's remarks on libya today? are we now at war? was that the communication? even coming away from it, i had a hard time answering that question for myself. >> when i heard the president's speech, i thought gee, we might be, and here is why. he said very clearly that as far as he's concerned and the united states is concerned, gadhafi has lost the legitimacy to lead. he forfeited the right to be president of libya, and he set these demands, gadhafi has to stop, he has to withdraw, these are not negotiable and there will be consequences. so that to me says we are going to use force to make gadhafi do what we want him to do. >> and of course, if he doesn't do what we want him to do,
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)